Scanned sites / bing.com / 2026-10-23-0536

bing.com scan from 2026-10-23 05:36:44 UTC DR 93

DR is Ahrefs Domain Rating (0-100, backlink strength), used under its Domain Rating License.

Scan 2026-10-23-0536

Scanned 2026-10-23 05:36:44 UTC, finished 2026-10-23 06:05:26 UTC. Found with 42backlinks.com tool directory

Not a full crawl. The site rate-limited the crawler (25 requests answered 429), so the scan finished early with 5128 URLs left unfetched. Results cover what was crawled.

Site: https://bing.com/

Download SQLite databaseEvery page and asset from this scan, with the crawl events, in one file.

86/ 100GoodNot a full crawl

On October 23, 2026 the Site Spider crawled 737 pages and 21 assets of bing.com, starting from https://bing.com/. It scored 86 out of 100, a good result. 11 of 33 checks found something to fix, led by image alt text (10,209), indexability (126), title tags (121); 9 checks passed. Most of the points went to image alt text (−5.3), indexability (−1.8), title tags (−1.7). 13 checks found something the score does not count, listed as noted. 4 checks were not run because the crawl fetched nothing for them. The list below shows each check's result, the fix plan, when present, explains what to do first, and the security review at the end of the page covers headers, transport, libraries and exposed files.

Security review: Medium3 medium and 2 low findings. See the security findings ↓

Pages crawled
737
Assets fetched
21
Status
Completed
Checks with issues
11 of 33
CoverageJob finished, partial coverage

758 of 6,000 discovered URLs were fetched, 114 blocked by robots.txt, 29,466 left out by the 5,000-page and 1,000-asset budget, 5,128 skipped when the crawl was cut short. The job finished, but the crawl did not reach everything it found. HTML only: nothing here ran JavaScript. 300 link destinations on other sites were checked, 1984 left unchecked.

  • Title tags121 issues
    121 of 126 pages have title issues. 579 noindex or canonicalized pages excluded.
    −1.7 points
  • Meta descriptions126 issues
    126 of 126 pages have meta description issues. 579 noindex or canonicalized pages excluded.
    −1.4 points
  • Headings126 issues
    126 of 126 pages have heading issues. 579 noindex or canonicalized pages excluded.
    −1.1 points
  • Broken linksOK
    0 internal links point at 0 broken URLs.
  • Links to other sites3 issues
    3 destinations answered with an error, 73 could not be determined (timeouts, rate limits or refusals), 1984 were left unchecked by the per-scan cap, of 300 destinations checked.
    −0.2 points
  • Redirects7 issues
    10 redirecting URLs, 0 of them chained.
  • Non-200 responses10 noted
    10 URLs did not return a 2xx response. 8 of them are pages, 0 with an error status; the rest are assets or redirects.
  • Rate limited24 issues
    24 URLs (24 pages) answered HTTP 429 on every try, so the crawler backed off and moved on without analysing them. A site that throttles crawlers this hard can throttle search engines too.
    −0.1 points
  • Indexability126 issues
    126 of 132 indexable pages have indexability warnings. 573 pages noindex by design.
    −1.8 points
  • Image alt text10,209 issues
    10209 of 11635 image references have no alt attribute. 308 use an empty alt (decorative), which is fine.
    −5.3 points
  • Heavy assetsOK
    0 assets larger than 500 KB among 21 fetched assets.
  • Orphan pages7 issues
    7 pages have no internal links pointing at them.
  • Sitemap coverage126 issues
    1 sitemap listing 0 URLs: 126 crawled pages missing, 0 listed URLs broken or redirecting, 0 reachable only via the sitemap.
    −1.1 points
  • Internal link counts451 noted
    Internal link counts for 500 pages; 451 worth a look.
  • Thin content94 issues
    94 of 126 pages have fewer than 200 words. 579 noindex or canonicalized pages excluded.
    −1.1 points
  • Duplicate contentOK
    0 groups of pages with identical HTML.
  • URL format734 noted
    734 of 737 page URLs are harder to read, share or cache than they need to be.
  • Canonicals705 noted
    705 of 705 pages have a canonical worth checking.
  • Robots directives603 noted
    603 pages carry a robots directive; 102 carry none.
  • Anchor text66 noted
    66 destinations are linked without useful anchor text, or with nofollow.
  • Title and heading structure32 noted
    32 of 126 pages could use the title, heading and snippet space better. 579 noindex or canonicalized pages excluded.
  • Image weight and alt length9 noted
    0 images over 100 KB; 9 with alt text over 100 characters.
  • Response anomaliesOK
    No redirect loops, header redirects or pages served as something other than HTML.
  • HTML and head validation62 noted
    62 of 705 pages have HTML problems: 0 with head tags outside <head>, 0 over 2 MB.
  • hreflangOK
    No page declares hreflang.
  • Structured dataOK
    No page carries structured data (126 indexable pages checked).
  • Near duplicates18 noted
    18 pages in 8 groups read almost the same as another page (95% alike or more).
  • Soft 404sOK
    None of 705 pages answering 200 reads like an error page.
  • AccessibilityNot checked
    Not checked: the accessibility audit runs in the browser. Tick "Include JavaScript rendering checks" when you request a scan to run it.
  • Link positions64 noted
    64 of 122 linked pages are linked only from the template, never from another page's content.
  • PaginationOK
    No page declares rel=next or rel=prev pagination.
  • Headers and cookies12 noted
    13 cookies set by the site, 12 missing a protective flag; 14 response headers recorded across 758 URLs.
  • Orphans in searchNot checked
    Not checked: import a Search Console Pages export on the scan page to find pages Google shows that the site does not link to.
  • Link ScoreOK
    Link Score (internal PageRank, 0-100) for 705 pages; 677 hold almost none (10 or less).
  • JavaScript renderingNot checked
    Not checked: this scan did not render pages. Tick "Include JavaScript rendering checks" when you request a scan to compare the served HTML with what a browser builds.
  • PageSpeed InsightsNot checked
    Not checked yet: PageSpeed Insights runs on the top pages once the crawl has finished.
  • Spelling6 noted
    6 words an English dictionary does not know, on 16 pages. Product names and jargon will appear here too.

Where this scan sits among all scanned sites

2309 sites, median 79%, average 78%

bing.com scores 86%, higher than 77% of the 2309 scanned sites. See the full ranking.

0581160%: 0 sites1%: 0 sites2%: 0 sites3%: 0 sites4%: 0 sites5%: 0 sites6%: 0 sites7%: 0 sites8%: 0 sites9%: 1 site10%: 0 sites11%: 0 sites12%: 0 sites13%: 0 sites14%: 1 site15%: 0 sites16%: 0 sites17%: 0 sites18%: 0 sites19%: 0 sites20%: 0 sites21%: 1 site22%: 0 sites23%: 0 sites24%: 0 sites25%: 0 sites26%: 0 sites27%: 0 sites28%: 1 site29%: 0 sites30%: 0 sites31%: 0 sites32%: 0 sites33%: 1 site34%: 0 sites35%: 2 sites36%: 2 sites37%: 1 site38%: 3 sites39%: 1 site40%: 3 sites41%: 1 site42%: 1 site43%: 3 sites44%: 1 site45%: 4 sites46%: 5 sites47%: 5 sites48%: 3 sites49%: 6 sites50%: 5 sites51%: 5 sites52%: 10 sites53%: 6 sites54%: 8 sites55%: 9 sites56%: 8 sites57%: 12 sites58%: 16 sites59%: 8 sites60%: 16 sites61%: 12 sites62%: 19 sites63%: 27 sites64%: 21 sites65%: 32 sites66%: 36 sites67%: 34 sites68%: 35 sites69%: 46 sites70%: 44 sites71%: 68 sites72%: 70 sites73%: 68 sites74%: 69 sites75%: 71 sites76%: 86 sites77%: 92 sites78%: 106 sites79%: 85 sites80%: 105 sites81%: 106 sites82%: 116 sites83%: 99 sites84%: 107 sites85%: 86 sites86%: 70 sites87%: 73 sites88%: 59 sites89%: 60 sites90%: 33 sites91%: 45 sites92%: 36 sites93%: 21 sites94%: 15 sites95%: 11 sites96%: 10 sites97%: 12 sites98%: 4 sites99%: 1 site100%: 70 sites86% here100%90%80%70%60%50%40%30%20%10%0%

Green 90% and up (Excellent), lime 75 to 89 (Good), amber 50 to 74 (Needs work), red below 50 (Poor).

Internal link map

Loading the link map...

Start page (centre)OKRedirectErrorOrphanLinked from most pagesOne inbound link or noneRings = clicks from the start page. Size = inbound links. Drag to pan, scroll to zoom, click a page to see only its links.

Fix plan

Written by gpt-4o-mini from the scan findings

The site has several areas needing fixes, focusing on redirects, title tags, meta descriptions, headings, indexability, and sitemap coverage. Addressing these issues will improve SEO and user experience significantly.

  1. 1

    Fix Redirects

    Why: Redirects can confuse search engines and users.

    How: Update the URLs to point directly to their final destinations without unnecessary redirects.

    Checks: redirects

  2. 2

    Resolve Non-200 Responses

    Why: Non-200 responses can impair user access and SEO visibility.

    How: Identify and correct the URLs returning non-200 responses, ensuring they return valid content.

    Checks: status-codes

  3. 3

    Add Missing H1 Tags

    Why: H1 tags are vital for content hierarchy and SEO.

    How: Implement a clear and relevant H1 tag on all pages lacking one.

    Evidence: 126 pages: missing h1.

    126 pages affected

    Checks: headings

  4. 4

    Update Title Tags and Meta Descriptions

    Why: Unique titles and descriptions improve click-through rates.

    How: Craft specific title tags and meta descriptions for pages with issues highlighted in the report.

    Evidence: 27 pages share the title "Top stories - Search Videos", which usually means one template writes it for all of them.

    27 pages affected

    Depends on: If these pages really are the same content, the duplicate title is a symptom: canonicalise them to one URL instead.

    Checks: titles, meta-descriptions

  5. 5

    Improve Sitemap Coverage

    Why: A comprehensive sitemap helps with indexing and visibility.

    How: Ensure all crawled URLs are included in the sitemap and resubmit to search engines.

    Evidence: 126 URLs: not in sitemap.

    126 pages affected

    Checks: sitemap-coverage

  6. 6

    Resolve Indexability Issues

    Why: Fixing indexability improves search engine access to critical pages.

    How: Ensure that pages flagged with indexability warnings receive appropriate canonical or no canonical tags.

    Evidence: 62 pages flagged: No canonical, No viewport meta.

    62 pages affected

    Depends on: Confirm the pages really share a cause before changing them together.

    Checks: indexability

Generated automatically; verify each change against your own site before relying on it.

Security review

Written by gpt-4o-mini from 16 checks over the crawl

The website has several security weaknesses, including missing security headers and improper cookie flags. These issues could expose users to various risks, such as data interception and clickjacking attacks. Immediate attention is required to improve site security.

  • 0 high
  • 3 medium
  • 2 low
  • 0 info
  1. 1

    Missing HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS)Medium

    Why it matters: Without HSTS, users may be vulnerable to man-in-the-middle attacks when accessing the site via http.

    Fix: Implement the header: Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=31536000; includeSubDomains

    Evidence: HTTP Strict Transport Security

  2. 2

    Missing X-Frame-Options HeaderMedium

    Why it matters: Absent X-Frame-Options allows malicious sites to embed the site in a frame, leading to clickjacking attacks.

    Fix: Add the header: X-Frame-Options: DENY or use a CSP frame-ancestors directive.

    Evidence: Clickjacking protection

  3. 3

    Improper Cookie FlagsMedium

    Why it matters: Cookies without protective flags can be accessed by scripts and potentially exposed over non-secure connections.

    Fix: Set HttpOnly, Secure, and SameSite attributes on cookies.

    Evidence: Cookie flags

  4. 4

    Missing X-Content-Type-Options HeaderLow

    Why it matters: Without this header, browsers may execute files as scripts due to incorrect MIME types, leading to XSS risks.

    Fix: Add the header: X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff

    Evidence: MIME sniffing protection

  5. 5

    Mixed Content IssuesLow

    Why it matters: Loading resources over HTTP on HTTPS pages increases vulnerability to attacks and user data exposure.

    Fix: Change all resource URLs from http:// to https://.

    Evidence: Mixed content

What the checks found

  • FoundHTTP Strict Transport SecurityMedium

    6 of 705 HTML pages send strict-transport-security. Without it a visitor who types the address without https:// can be intercepted on the first request.

    • https://www.bing.com/videos?FORM=Z9LH1 → no strict-transport-security
    • https://www.bing.com/maps?FORM=Z9LH2 → no strict-transport-security
    • https://www.bing.com/news/search?q=Top+stories&nvaug=%5bNewsVertical+Category%3d%22rt_MaxClass%22%5d&FORM=Z9LH3 → no strict-transport-security
    • https://www.bing.com/videos?FORM=Z9LH1&setlang=fr&sid=37FC3AACD1846DB6281E2D57D01B6CF3 → no strict-transport-security
    • https://www.bing.com/videos?FORM=HDRSC4 → no strict-transport-security
    • https://www.bing.com/videos/search?view=shortvideo&qft=+filterui:filterhint-shortvideo&q=most%20viewed%20shorts&FORM=SV… → no strict-transport-security
    • https://www.bing.com/maps?q=&FORM=HDRSC6 → no strict-transport-security
    • https://www.bing.com/news/search?q=&FORM=HDRSC7 → no strict-transport-security
    • https://www.bing.com/maps/?FORM=Z9LH2&setlang=fr&sid=188A097F609A678F1E921E8461166657 → no strict-transport-security
    • https://www.bing.com/news/search?q=Top+stories&nvaug=%5bNewsVertical+Category%3d%22rt_MaxClass%22%5d&FORM=Z9LH3&setlang… → no strict-transport-security
    • https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Top+stories&FORM=HDRSC4 → no strict-transport-security
    • https://www.bing.com/maps?q=Top+stories&FORM=HDRSC6 → no strict-transport-security
  • FoundClickjacking protectionMedium

    32 of 705 HTML pages send x-frame-options. Without X-Frame-Options (or a CSP frame-ancestors directive) the pages can be embedded in a frame on another site and overlaid with invisible controls.

    • https://www.bing.com/videos?FORM=Z9LH1 → no x-frame-options
    • https://www.bing.com/news/search?q=Top+stories&nvaug=%5bNewsVertical+Category%3d%22rt_MaxClass%22%5d&FORM=Z9LH3 → no x-frame-options
    • https://www.bing.com/shop/deals/cashback → no x-frame-options
    • https://www.bing.com/videos?FORM=Z9LH1&setlang=fr&sid=37FC3AACD1846DB6281E2D57D01B6CF3 → no x-frame-options
    • https://www.bing.com/videos?FORM=HDRSC4 → no x-frame-options
    • https://www.bing.com/videos/search?view=shortvideo&qft=+filterui:filterhint-shortvideo&q=most%20viewed%20shorts&FORM=SV… → no x-frame-options
    • https://www.bing.com/news/search?q=&FORM=HDRSC7 → no x-frame-options
    • https://www.bing.com/news/search?q=Top+stories&nvaug=%5bNewsVertical+Category%3d%22rt_MaxClass%22%5d&FORM=Z9LH3&setlang… → no x-frame-options
    • https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Top+stories&FORM=HDRSC4 → no x-frame-options
    • https://www.bing.com/news/search?q=Top+stories&nvaug=%5bNewsVertical+Category%3d%22rt_MaxClass%22%5d&FORM=NSBABR → no x-frame-options
    • https://www.bing.com/news/search?q=Canada&nvaug=%5bNewsVertical+Category%3d%22rt_Canada%22%5d&FORM=NSBABR → no x-frame-options
    • https://www.bing.com/news/search?q=World&nvaug=%5bNewsVertical+Category%3d%22rt_World%22%5d&FORM=NSBABR → no x-frame-options
  • FoundMIME sniffing protectionLow

    No HTML page sends x-content-type-options. Without X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff a browser may run a file as a script because of its contents rather than its declared type.

    • https://www.bing.com/?toWww=1&redig=116FB39520F049FF8A070A7398314FDD → no x-content-type-options
    • https://www.bing.com/videos?FORM=Z9LH1 → no x-content-type-options
    • https://www.bing.com/maps?FORM=Z9LH2 → no x-content-type-options
    • https://www.bing.com/news/search?q=Top+stories&nvaug=%5bNewsVertical+Category%3d%22rt_MaxClass%22%5d&FORM=Z9LH3 → no x-content-type-options
    • https://www.bing.com/shop/deals/cashback → no x-content-type-options
    • https://www.bing.com/?FORM=Z9FD1 → no x-content-type-options
    • https://www.bing.com/videos?FORM=Z9LH1&setlang=fr&sid=37FC3AACD1846DB6281E2D57D01B6CF3 → no x-content-type-options
    • https://www.bing.com/videos?FORM=HDRSC4 → no x-content-type-options
    • https://www.bing.com/videos/search?view=shortvideo&qft=+filterui:filterhint-shortvideo&q=most%20viewed%20shorts&FORM=SV… → no x-content-type-options
    • https://www.bing.com/maps?q=&FORM=HDRSC6 → no x-content-type-options
    • https://www.bing.com/news/search?q=&FORM=HDRSC7 → no x-content-type-options
    • https://www.bing.com/maps/?FORM=Z9LH2&setlang=fr&sid=188A097F609A678F1E921E8461166657 → no x-content-type-options
  • FoundCookie flagsMedium

    12 of 13 cookies are missing protective flags. Without HttpOnly a script can read the cookie; without Secure it travels over plain HTTP; without SameSite it is sent on cross-site requests.

    • MUID (set by https://bing.com/) lacks HttpOnly
    • MUIDB (set by https://bing.com/) lacks Secure, SameSite
    • _EDGE_S (set by https://bing.com/) lacks Secure, SameSite
    • _EDGE_V (set by https://bing.com/) lacks Secure, SameSite
    • SRCHD (set by https://www.bing.com/?toWww=1&redig=116FB39520F049FF8A070A7398314FDD) lacks Secure, HttpOnly, SameSite
    • SRCHUID (set by https://www.bing.com/?toWww=1&redig=116FB39520F049FF8A070A7398314FDD) lacks Secure, HttpOnly, SameSite
    • SRCHUSR (set by https://www.bing.com/?toWww=1&redig=116FB39520F049FF8A070A7398314FDD) lacks Secure, HttpOnly, SameSite
    • SRCHHPGUSR (set by https://www.bing.com/?toWww=1&redig=116FB39520F049FF8A070A7398314FDD) lacks Secure, HttpOnly, SameSite
    • _SS (set by https://www.bing.com/?toWww=1&redig=116FB39520F049FF8A070A7398314FDD) lacks Secure, HttpOnly, SameSite
    • ULC (set by https://www.bing.com/?toWww=1&redig=116FB39520F049FF8A070A7398314FDD) lacks Secure, HttpOnly, SameSite
    • _HPVN (set by https://www.bing.com/?toWww=1&redig=116FB39520F049FF8A070A7398314FDD) lacks Secure, HttpOnly, SameSite
    • MMCASM (set by https://www.bing.com/videos?FORM=Z9LH1) lacks Secure, HttpOnly, SameSite
  • FoundMixed contentLow

    241 resources on HTTPS pages are loaded over plain HTTP.

    • https://www.bing.com/videos/search?view=shortvideo&qft=+filterui:filt… loads image http://www.bing.com/sa/simg/facebook_sharing_5.png
    • https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Top+stories&FORM=HDRSC4 loads image http://www.bing.com/sa/simg/facebook_sharing_5.png
    • https://www.bing.com/videos/search?view=shortvideo&qft=+filterui%3afi… loads image http://www.bing.com/sa/simg/facebook_sharing_5.png
    • https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=most+viewed+shorts&FORM=HDRSC4 loads image http://www.bing.com/sa/simg/facebook_sharing_5.png
    • https://www.bing.com/videos/search?view=shortvideo&qft=+filterui:filt… loads image http://www.bing.com/sa/simg/facebook_sharing_5.png
    • https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Most+Viewed+YouTube+Shorts&qft=+… loads image http://www.bing.com/sa/simg/facebook_sharing_5.png
    • https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Most+View+Today&qft=+filterui%3a… loads image http://www.bing.com/sa/simg/facebook_sharing_5.png
    • https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Most+Viewed+Short+Films&qft=+fil… loads image http://www.bing.com/sa/simg/facebook_sharing_5.png
    • https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Most+Viewed+TV+Show&qft=+filteru… loads image http://www.bing.com/sa/simg/facebook_sharing_5.png
    • https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Reacting+to+Most+Viewed+YouTube+… loads image http://www.bing.com/sa/simg/facebook_sharing_5.png
    • https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Most+Viewed+Today&qft=+filterui%… loads image http://www.bing.com/sa/simg/facebook_sharing_5.png
    • https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Jesser+YouTube&qft=+filterui%3af… loads image http://www.bing.com/sa/simg/facebook_sharing_5.png
  • NoteThird-party scripts

    Scripts run from 1 other domain without Subresource Integrity, so a compromise of any of them changes what runs on this site. (Tag managers and analytics rarely support SRI; a Content-Security-Policy that names these hosts is the usual control.)

    • r.bing.com (38 script tags)
9 checks passed, 1 not applicable
  • OKHTTPS

    All 705 crawled pages were served over HTTPS.

  • OKContent Security Policy

    A Content-Security-Policy is set.

  • OKReferrer policy

    A referrer policy is set through a <meta name="referrer"> tag.

  • OKPermissions policy

    permissions-policy is set on all 705 HTML pages.

  • OKSoftware version disclosure

    No Server or X-Powered-By header is sent.

  • OKForms over HTTPS

    42 forms found, all on HTTPS pages posting to HTTPS addresses.

  • OKKeys and secrets in page code

    No API keys, tokens or private keys were found in the sampled HTML and scripts.

  • OKExposed files and listings

    None of the crawled URLs is a configuration file, backup, dump, repository folder or directory listing.

  • OKSensitive paths in robots.txt

    robots.txt does not point at admin, backup or private paths.

  • Not applicableVulnerable JavaScript libraries

    No recognisable library versions were found in the sampled scripts.

A passive review of what the crawl recorded: response headers, page and script contents and the URLs it found. It does not probe the site, test TLS settings or look for files that were not linked. Generated automatically; verify each finding against your own site before acting on it.

Sites scoring near bing.com

Their neighbours in the SEO rank table, which orders every scanned site by health score.

DR is Ahrefs Domain Rating (0-100, backlink strength), used under its Domain Rating License.

This report was produced by the DIY SEO Hub Site Spider crawling bing.com from its pages as published, the way a search engine does. It shows summary figures only.

Own bing.com?